David Barrett-Lennard
Isn't non-locality simply associated with
the ability for the future to affect the past?
Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and
no future.
But I may be wrong. Because, at this level, as
pointed out long

According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope of
the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie backwards
and everything looks normal. Of course the movie can't include a
measurement

All this talk of quantum immortality seems like anthropocentric wishful
thinking to me.
You are a process. All physical objects are best understood as slow
processes.
A life process is a very complex physical pattern, which is an
arrangement of matter and energy in space-time,
that has

David Barrett-Lennard
According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope of
the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie backwards
and everything looks normal.
Yes, but how small?

Hi,
- Original Message -
From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings;
this reply has taken some time...
I don't quite agree with your point of view, and the reason is maybe
similar to our disagreement in my statement: It is not useful to talk
about 1st person experiences in

scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard
> According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
> time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope
of
> the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie
backwards
> and everything looks normal.
Yes, but

scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard
> Isn't "non-locality" simply associated with
> the ability for the "future" to affect the "past"?
Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and
no future.
The association between non-locality and

This list is dedicated to exploring the implications of the prospect
that all universes exist. According to this principle, universes
exist with all possible laws of physics. It follows that universes
exist which follow the MWI; and universes exist where only one branch
is real and where the

http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9501011
Both the protective and the weak-value experiments
associated with this idea are now being tried out...
-Joao
Yes and they are testing the famous 3-quantum-boxes
paradox http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310091
with related negative probabilities!
Can a

Hal Finney wrote:
This list is dedicated to exploring the implications
of the prospect
that all universes exist. According to this principle, universes
exist with all possible laws of physics. It follows that universes
exist which follow the MWI; and universes exist where only one branch
is real

As I recall, Tegmark also said that there would be classically deterministic
universes, with no quantum physics at all. So, it seems that an SAS in such a universe
would have no reason to surmise a Level III multiverse. It makes you wonder what
things we SASs don't know about, that might have

CORRECTION -- sorry -- Ben Udell.
As I recall, Tegmark also said that there would be classically deterministic
universes, with no quantum physics at all. So, it seems that an SAS in such a universe
would have no reason to surmise a Level III multiverse. It makes you wonder what
things we SASs

David Barrett-Lennard, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
Given the idea of the ensemble for a TOE, it is only necessary that
SAS's can exist - no matter how improbable. That they exist is of
course an empirical fact. An SAS will find the universe is fine tuned
in order for that SAS to exist.

Benjamin Udell, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
As I recall, Tegmark also said that there would be classically
deterministic universes, with no quantum physics at all. So, it seems
that an SAS in such a universe would have no reason to surmise a Level
III multiverse. It makes you wonder what

David Kwinter wrote:
Thank you Bruno Jesse, this anticipatory QTI is the most awesome
interpretation of QM I've ever heard.
It's not so much an interpretation of QM as the many-worlds interpretation
of QM + some assumptions about laws of consciousness, particularly laws
governing first-person

I'm sure we all agree that QM on its own is not the full story. Ditto
with GR. Has anyone claimed to come up with a self consistent, complete
description of our universe? Saying that all universes exist which
follow the MWI is putting too much faith in a partial (and perhaps
merely

By small I meant small number of particles.
- David
-Original Message-
From: scerir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: spooky action at a distance
David Barrett-Lennard
According to QM, in small systems evolving